EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided February 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB132025_04B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Service center found this criterion satisfied and the AAO did not disturb that finding.
- Scholarly articles · Service center found this criterion satisfied and the AAO did not disturb that finding.
What was missing
- Awards · Honor roll placement was not shown to be a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence.
- High salary · Salary was compared to lower job classifications rather than to others in the same position.
- Original contributions · Patent and research were original but their impact was not shown to be of major significance in the field.
- Final merits · Record did not show sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center found this criterion satisfied and the AAO did not disturb that finding. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Service center found this criterion satisfied and the AAO did not disturb that finding. |
 Awards | Not met | Honor roll placement was not shown to be a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. |
 High salary | Not met | Salary was compared to lower job classifications rather than to others in the same position. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Patent and research were original but their impact was not shown to be of major significance in the field. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record did not show sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.